Making War to Keep Peace

Reveals the actions leading up to today's problems and what went wrong. Suggest ways to avoid repeating our mistakes and handling foreign affairs better. A real eye opener to the working of the United Nations.

We Americans have assumed that most of the world's peoples shared our goals and values, especially our need to be free. We've thought they had the same yearnings, concerns and ideals. September 11, however, should have taught us that what we believed were universal truths simply are not. "There are people committed to, and indeed driven by, goals and values that run violently counter to our own," writes Jean Kirkpatrick. It is too bad for America that it isn't Ambassador Kirkpatrick running for President. She would have been a great one. Her clear thinking, moral values and ethics and her vast experience on the world political stage would have served her -- and us -- well. Fortunately we have the next best thing: Books that give us insight into her mind. "Right Versus Might," "The Reagan Phenomenon," "Political Woman," "Dismantling the Parties," "Leader and Vanguard" and now "Making War to Keep Peace," are a few of the titles that give us that insight. In "Making War to Keep Peace" Kirkpatrick chronicles the period from the First Gulf War to the beginning of the current war in Iraq. She points out that the current war is simply an extension of the first -- finishing what we started, as it were. Therefore the war is sanctioned and legal under UN resolution 687, which contains the terms of the cease-fire, terms which Hussein violated repeatedly over a period of years. "The legal authority to use force to address Iraq's material breaches was and remains clear, and is a matter of record," she writes. "Moreover, the United States and the United Kingdom had the strength of evidence that more attacks were impending if they did not take action." Part of that evidence (in addition to international intelligence reports from a variety of sources) included Hussein's chemical warfare against his own people as well as attacks on American planes flying UN missions over Iraq for the past decade. In spite of what those eager for political power in the US would have us believe, President Bush WAS justified in going to war in Iraq and it is in the best interest of America and Americans that he (and we) prosecute that war to a victorious end. To those who hold President Clinton up as an example of one who kept the peace she points out that on many occasions he sent our troops into war without the approval of Congress. In Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo the Clinton administration failed miserably and embarrassingly. Although Ms. Kirkpatrick believes in the United Nations, the picture she presents of its recent leadership and actions does not convince me that Americans should continue to support that body. The power building antics of Boutros-Ghali and Kofi Annan have strained the credibility of the organization and cast it too often and too favorably in opposition to America's best interests. American troops have historically borne most of the military effort in the UN's "peacekeeping" efforts. To Kofi Annan's statement that we should give our enemies a cha

Like Reagan, Kirkpatrick was a Democrat who did not leave the party as much as it left her. This book is really way too short given the amount of sweeping historical events that she lived through and even helped shape, but given the fact that the book devotes so little space to the current wars declared by the terrorists, I suspect that her 80 years were taking their toll, especially since she was so meticulous in providing support for her ideas as well as her going into great detail about the major issues she covered in the early chapters. But the most important part of this book for me was she is someone who writes about the UN where she served as US Ambassador, and subsequent years, and shows it to really be beyond redemption as it has become such a horribly ineffective and wasteful swamp as well as counterproductive to the ideals of its founders. Even in areas where she does not render her own opinion, she leaves the reader with a listing of facts which are so often neglected by those who want to rewrite history to their own liking. It is unfortunate that she waited so long to write this book as it probably could have been twice as long and still be difficult to put down as this one is if she had lived longer. Thank you, Madam Ambassador for all of your contributions in a life well-lived.

Biographical information about Jeane Kirkpatrick is contained in the Editorial Review. She died of heart failure at age 80, just months before this book went to print. Ms. Kirkpatrick had a true and clear mind right to the end. In this work I expected a "realpolitik" analysis of the power struggles, strategic alliances, competition for resources of the modern global era and how these related to the use of force in certain circumstances. These matters are kept in the background as Ms. Kirkpatrick uses her keen intellect to analyze, and in some instances "expose" that most important of modern international institutions, the United Nations. She describes the relevance of the U.N. Charter and resolutions as they come into conflict (and occasional concert) with United States' foreign policy doctrines, NATO, and the European Union since the collapse of the Russian empire. Six modern clashes that led to violence are analyzed: The Persian Gulf War, Somalia, Haiti, The Balkan Wars, Kosovo, and in one chapter, Afghanistan and Iraq. Kirkpatrick's exposition is too complex to condense in this review, but she presents the clearest explanation of the forces at work in the Balkan Wars I've read. The inability of the U.N. to prevent the genocidal Milosevic from slaughtering thousands of innocents in the greatest European horror since the Holocaust is scrutinized and exposed. She also makes a solid case that, during their tenures, United Nations Secretary Generals Boutros-Ghali and Kofi Annan did their utmost to centralize and increase the power of their offices beyond the scope of the original Charter's intention. Perhaps because her time was running out, Jeane Kirkpatrick was not able to fully engage herself in the current discussion about the Middle East. The book jacket and other advertisements state that Kirkpatrick had "grave reservations" about the war in Iraq. This is sensationalistic exaggeration. She only used this expression one time. In fact she goes to great length to build a legal brief based on the U.N. Charter, resolutions, and the U.S. Constitution to prove that President Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq was absolutely legitimate. She concludes: "Thus, whatever other debates may persists about the war, the contention that it was "illegal" is itself illegitimate." This book is a brilliant elaboration of the machinations of the modern United Nations, as well as a compendium of modern international conflict.

The late Jeane Kirkpatrick has achieved iconic status within the Republican party, both for her service as Ambassador to the United Nations and as an international pundit. Yet Ambassador Kirkpatrick did not inhabit the margins of the conservative political spectrum being neither a neo-con nor Pat Buchanan style isolationist. The former ambassador was a "realist" who required US foreign policy to be a servant of "vital national interests." This basic belief is utilized in its full power in "Making War to Keep Peace." The book is meticulously researched. With slightly over 300 pages of primary content, an additional 40 pages of notes are presented. Ambassador Kirkpatrick provided overwhelming detail of the events covered. The time frame begins with President George H. W. Bush (Bush 41) through the presidency of George W. Bush (Bush 43), and covers a number of international (mis)adventures. If there are any complaints, it would be that Ambassador Kirkpatrick did not provide her opinions on a number of events. For example, she documents fully why Bush 41 held the American forces at the borders of Iraq following the expulsion of the Iraqi armies from Kuwiat. She also notes the desire of General Norman Schwartzkoff to "finish the job" by destroying the Iraqi military and overtaking Baghdad. Yet Ambassador Kirkpatrick withholds her opinion as to which course she would have recommended. In addition, I believed that occasions when the United States could have acted but didn't, such as the shameful refusal of the Clinton administration to intervene in Rwanda or the Bush 43 ignoring of Darfur, could have been discussed as counterpoint to the occasions, such as Sommalia, when the US did act. It would be interesting to learn of her view why some problems were considered of national interest and others, were not. All in all, this was a very interesting and usefull review of parts of the United States' foreign policy since 1990. "Making War to Keep Peace" will surely not ever be considered a seminal work, but certainly is a surprisingly balanced and authoritative presentation.